(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 Behold, the card that was banned before it was even released. Of course, that version was not OPT, so it was absurdly more powerful due to card such as Jar of Greed. After its errata and movement to 1, it failed to make any sort of noticeable impact, as it was a generally subpar effect attached to a limited card. Now, however, it is at 1, meaning that if a deck wanted to use it (Tellars certainly have utility, as well as BA) it is much more consistent for them to draw into it. On the other hand, it is hard OPT, so once you have 1 out, any others you draw are dead (in BA they can still act as fodder for Karma Cut, but that is suboptimal compared to triggering a Malebranche effect). What is everyone's opinion of this card? Does anyone think that the movement to three is enough to give it a chance to see play?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 It's shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello my name is Enguin Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 The errata to bring it back made it so useless that there's no point in it being unbanned anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodfusion Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 It would be nice if it allowed a once per turn activation of a Trap Card from your hand instead of the activate the turn it's set thing. That way, it could be a nice way for Trap-heavy decks to dodge Denko Sekka, Dark Simorgh etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilfusion Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 I'm glad this got an errata and is unbanned, because it means Mystical Beast Serket isn't banned by association. As for the card itself, it's a cool little card, letting you use Traps the turn you Set them (once a turn), and it's got that little "SS almost anything" effect, which is amusing. But yeah, it's one of those cards that was ridiculous before the errata, and now is just outclassed and conditional.It's shite. No shiteposting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 WHY THE funk COULDN'T SERKET BE MORE PLAYABLE >:U .... Look, I adore This card's 2nd effect. Serket is just too damn awkward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 At best it's a mediocre 2-card combo with unsearchable cards that sucks otherwise. It's shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zauls Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 To be honest, I think this is one of the only erratas that really needed to happen because of Serket. Just so the card is playable, I mean, it won't ever be good. Unfortunately, it was errata'd so badly it became virtually unplayable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilfusion Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 To be honest, I think this is one of the only erratas that really needed to happen because of Serket. Just so the card is playable, I mean, it won't ever be good. Unfortunately, it was errata'd so badly it became virtually unplayable. Out of genuine curiosity, what would a more reasonable errata have been? The problem with the original Temple was there was no limit to the number of times you could active Traps that turn. So you'd just pad your Deck with all those +0 draw Traps like Jar of Greed, and possibly finish with (before errata) Exchange of the Spirit. So limiting it to once a turn was probably the best choice for an errata to remove it from the list. And since the Summon effect said "Fusion Deck", the updated version says "1 Fusion from the Extra Deck". So that's not really a change there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffee. Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 Out of genuine curiosity, what would a more reasonable errata have been? The problem with the original Temple was there was no limit to the number of times you could active Traps that turn. So you'd just pad your Deck with all those +0 draw Traps like Jar of Greed, and possibly finish with (before errata) Exchange of the Spirit.Leave the effect in tact, and say you can't draw except in the Draw Phase :: So limiting it to once a turn was probably the best choice for an errata to remove it from the list. And since the Summon effect said "Fusion Deck", the updated version says "1 Fusion from the Extra Deck". So that's not really a change there.Ironicaly, in all the games/etc they would literally let you Summon any monster from your Extra Deck. It being just Fusion Monsters now is an incredibly lazy way to dodge potential abuse, if only because they were all "funk it; Fusion Deck -> 1 Fusion Monster". Though, honestly, playing Serket and This together is not only incredibly inconsistent, but also harder to accomplish, so a lot of us wish it still could Summon anything from your Extra, seeing as how you've put a lot of work into getting the two together. So it's a "fair" trade off, right... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zauls Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 Well, the main problem with the pre-errata version is the abuse of cards like Reckless Greed and other generic draw Traps, so perhaps just have a sentence that says "you cannot draw cards with card effects" or something, so you can't abuse it for FTKs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.